[CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
Avri Doria
avri at acm.org
Sun Dec 14 17:30:13 UTC 2014
Hi,
Not making, but insuring that the policy they made is handled properly.
Also they will be making decisions about the actions of Contract Co.,
ie. the basis for renewal, the content of any RFP &c. these will have a
very strong policy component.
I see this as a task of the policy making bodies.
avri
On 14-Dec-14 11:51, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> This would make sense if the MRT was making policy, but they are not.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Avri Doria
> *Sent:* Saturday, December 13, 2014 1:29 PM
> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> In this, the idea was that the policy making bodies, ie. the 2 naming
> SOs, should have the majority representation.
>
>
>
> avri
>
> On 13-Dec-14 13:06, Guru Acharya wrote:
>
> Hi Avri,
>
>
>
> I presume that GAC would also like to organise according to the 5
> regions, as it did for the ICG. Would 5 seats for GAC be an
> acceptable modification driven by the logic that you just presented?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> As one of those contributing to this draft who suggested this
> formula, I can give my thinking:
>
> 1. We should not be looking for numerical parity between the two
> policy makers, cc and g, but rather looking at their
> organizational structure.
>
> ccTLD policy organizes into regions, (5)
> gTLD policy organizes into Stakeholder Group (4)
>
> 2. When thinking of gTLD policy, it is the GNSO as a whole that
> needs to be represented in the MRT. The registries have a
> prioirty in the CSC which focuses on operational issues. I see
> the MRT as dealing with the Policy aspects and these are GNSO not
> just Registry Stakeholder Group.
>
> avri
>
>
>
> On 13-Dec-14 12:15, Donna Austin wrote:
>
> Milton,
>
>
>
> Speaking as the RySG representative on the CWG: as direct
> customers of the IANA function, gTLD registries would seek at
> a minimum parity, in your proposal, for five members from the
> ccNSO. Your current composition is inherently imbalanced by
> providing for only 1 gTLD registry operator compared to 5
> ccTLD registry operators.
>
>
>
> While ccTLDs have in the past been the primary customer of the
> IANA naming services, the delegation of more than 400 new
> gTLDs means that this is no longer the case. If you can find
> rationale to have 5 ccTLD registry operators in your proposed
> composition of the MRT, I see no reason why this rationale
> should not be extended to gTLD registry operators.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Donna
>
>
>
> Description: Description: Description: ARI Logo*DONNA AUSTIN*
> Policy and Industry Affairs Manager
>
>
>
> *ARI REGISTRY SERVICES*
> Melbourne *|* Los Angeles
> *P* +1 310 890 9655
> *P* +61 3 9866 3710
> *E *donna.austin at ariservices.com
> <mailto:donna.austin at ariservices.com>_
> _*W *www.ariservices.com <http://www.ariservices.com/>
>
>
>
> /Follow us on //Twitter/ <https://twitter.com/ARIservices>
>
>
>
> /The information contained in this communication is intended
> for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and
> may contain legally privileged and confidential information
> and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use,
> copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you
> have received this communication in error, please delete all
> copies from your system and notify us immediately./
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>
> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Milton L Mueller
> *Sent:* Friday, 12 December 2014 5:42 AM
> *To:* Guru Acharya; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
>
>
>
> Here’s an idea that some of us in NCSG are kicking around
>
>
>
> We propose a 21-member team with 2 non-voting liaisons, with
> some kind of supermajority voting construct (⅔ or ⅘) for key
> decisions. The composition is structured and balanced to
> ensure that the MRT embodies a strong commitment to efficient
> and neutral administration of the DNS root zone rather than
> any specific policy agenda. Safeguards must be in place to
> ensure that it is independent of ICANN corporate but also
> cannot be captured or unduly influenced by governments,
> intergovernmental organizations, or specific economic
> interests. The MRT should draw most of its ICANN community
> members from ICANN’s GNSO and ccNSO, with the GNSO forwarding
> 4 (1 member for each Stakeholder Group), and the ccNSO
> forwarding 5 (1 for each world region). The root server
> operators should also be represented on the MRT with 2
> positions. Each ICANN Advisory Committee (GAC, SSAC and ALAC)
> should appoint 2 members. There should be 4 independent
> experts external to the ICANN community selected through a
> public nomination process administered by [who? ISOC? IEEE?]
> but subject to conflict of interest constraints. Additionally,
> 2 non-voting but fully participating liaisons from the other
> operational communities should be appointed (by ASO for
> numbers and by IAB for protocols) to facilitate coordination
> across the different IANA functions. MRT members should be
> appointed for limited terms sized appropriate to the contract
> renewal cycle.
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>
> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Guru
> Acharya
> *Sent:* Friday, December 12, 2014 6:07 AM
> *To:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
> *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
>
>
>
> The CWG is yet to decide the composition of the MRT. I was
> hoping someone could throw a strawman composition at us so
> that discussions can be initiated.
>
>
>
> As reference, the composition of ICG is as follows:
>
>
>
> ALAC x 2
>
> ASO x 1
>
> ccNSO x 4
>
> GAC x 5
>
> GNSO x 3
>
> gTLD Registries x 2
>
> ICC/BASIS x 1
>
> IAB x 2
>
> IETF x 2
>
> ISOC x 2
>
> NRO x 2
>
> RSSAC x 2
>
> SSAC x 2
>
>
>
> 1) Should members of non-naming communities (like IETF and
> ASO) be a part of MRT since our proposal only relates to the
> IANA for the names community? For example, the CRISP (numbers
> community) draft proposal does not envision names community
> members in its oversight mechanism.
>
>
>
> 2) Which stakeholder groups should be included beyond the
> ICANN community structures so that the MRT is representative
> of the global-multistakeholder community? For example, should
> IGF-MAG members have a place?
>
>
>
> 3) How do we include ccTLDs that are not ccNSO members?
>
>
>
> 4) How do we ensure membership from developing countries (not
> government, but civil society or technical community) - is
> some sort of affirmative action possible?
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141214/160367df/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 3765 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141214/160367df/attachment-0001.png>
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list